MANIK BASAK Vs. PARUL SHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 14 -07 -2008 passed by the Collector, South Tripura, Udaipur in case No.12 of 2008 whereby he allowed the application filed by the respondents and directed that the name of the petitioner be removed from column No.24 against hal plot no.237, 257, 134, 131, 217 & 218 of hal khatian no.17/1 & 17/2 of mouja Baishnabpur. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: -

(2.) THE respondents herein filed a petition that they had inherited the land in question which belonged to their late father Sri Gopal Chandra Shil. They claimed that the name of Manik Basak, S/O. Late Nakshatra Kumar Basak was wrongly recorded in column no.24 of khatian no.17/1 and 17/2. They, therefore, prayed for correction of the record of rights and prayed that the name of Sri Manik Basak be deleted from column no.24. The petitioner Manik Basak who is the son of Late Sri Nakshatra Kumar Basak appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written statement claiming that he was in possession of the land in question. Furthermore, it was urged that earlier Gopal Chandra Shil, predecessor -in -interest of the applicant who sought correction of the record of rights, had filed a suit against him (Manik Basak) and his father, Nakshatra Kumar Basak and one Sri Ananta Kumar Paul with regard to the same land. In this suit, the plaintiff had claimed that he was an owner in possession of the entire suit land. It was further alleged that the defendants claimed ownership over part of the plaintiff 's plot and hence, the suit.

(3.) THE Civil Court framed issues and held that the plaintiff had executed two unregistered documents in favour of the defendant and had failed to prove that he was in possession of the suit land since 1957 onwards. He, therefore, dismissed the suit and held that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of the suit land. The copy of this judgment had been annexed with the written statement filed before the Collector, but for reasons best known to the Collector, he did not even make reference to this judgment though otherwise he has referred to the written statement in detail.